I have previously written about the Howard government's extraordinary waste of taxpayer money on advertising itself. The most recent Sunday Age investigation reveals that Howard government has spent $2 billion of taxpayers money on political advertising. Two hundred million will be spent this year alone, before Howard calls an election. Since the previous election, Howard government is said to have spent an extraordinary $850 million of our money on self-promotion.
A government representative Peter Phelps denies these figures, but these denials ring hollow when you consider that the government goes to great lengths to conceal its advertising expenditure from any oversight. If the government won't let us know how much of our money it is spending, it forfeits the right to dispute figures uncovered by investigations. Mr Phelp's credibility falls into further doubt when he attempts to argue that the spending of $2 billion is "not excessive" because in "the final years of the Keating government" they spent $100 million per year "in real terms".
Phelp's statement is yet another example of government dishonesty. Spending $2 billion dollars of our money is not excessive because the Keating government spent a fraction of that?! The government tried to use a similar excuse with the Senate Committee in 2004. The argument was rejected by the Committee. The Committee stated:
Between 1991-92 and 1995-96, the average yearly advertising expenditure through the Central Advertising System was $85.6 million. Between 1996-97 and 2003-04, the average yearly expenditure on advertising was $126.75 million.1
The median expenditure over the whole period from 1991-92 to 2003-04 was $97 million. Expenditure by the Howard government since 1996-97 thus averages $29.75 million more than the median; expenditure by the Keating Labor government prior to 1996-97 averaged $11.4 million less than the median. Excluding the bi-partisan advertising campaigns for Defence Force Recruitment, the next nine most expensive advertising campaigns since 1991 have been conducted by the Howard government.
1. The figures are in 2003-04 prices. They reflect only the cost of ’media placement’ over this period, and do not include the cost of the design and production of the advertisements, public relations, market research and evaluation costs, or publication and distribution costs.
Let's remember that this was before the increase in Howard government's advertising expenditure since the 2004 election (having a Senate majority and being able to avoid scrutiny obviously helps). Let's also recall that the Committee found that it in fact underestimated the advertising expenditure, thanks to the lack of transparency and the government's refusal to cooperate with the Committee. And of course let's not forget that, although the Keating government advertising expenditure of $85.6 million (in today's values) falls well short of Howard's extraordinary advertising splurge - $200 million per year on average, almost $300 million per year over the last three years, Howard, as the Leader of the Opposition, vociferously criticised the Keating government for spending taxpayer money on government advertising.
There is a press release that the government would like us to forget. In the release, titled "Auditor-General to examine Government advertising" on 5 September 1995, Howard stated:
"This soiled Government is to spend a massive $14 million of taxpayers’ money over the next two months as part of its pre-election panic. Judging by information coming from within the public service, if the full communication barrage runs its course it could reach $50 million. This Government has effectively allowed the Labor Party to get its fingers into the taxpayers’ till"
…
"there is clearly a massive difference between necessary Government information for the community and blatant Government electoral propaganda"
…
"[when] in Government, we will ask the Auditor-General to draw up new guidelines on what is an appropriate use of taxpayers’ money in this area".
Upon being elected, the government promptly forgot the difference between necessary information and government propaganda, as well as its promise of independent guidelines in this area. I guess it was a non-core commitment and the lure of billions of taxpayer dollars for self-promotion was just too much to resist.
Howard's hypocritical reaction to Labor's vastly smaller advertising spend is not something that Peter Phelps wants to remind us of. He would also like us to forget that the government presently has 18 campaigns on the go - there are the "don't know where you stand" Workchoices advertisements (to compliment the blatantly misleading big business ads), there are the "we are so good on superannuation reform" ads, there is supposed to be a massively expensive climate change campaign (no doubt designed to change the political climate rather than to forestall global warming), there are the "if you see or hear anything suspicious" security hotline ads (I wonder if seeing or hearing a dodge government ad counts as "suspicious"?) and many others. Peter Phelps wouldn't want us to know that the Howard government advertising spending is one of the highest in the world on a per capita basis or that it is the biggest advertiser in Australia.
And he wouldn't want us to remember that the $2 billion dollars he doesn't think is excessive, means $100 from the pocket of every man, woman and child in Australia. When someone puts their grubby hand into your pocket and, without your permission, helps himself to $100 for every member of your family, do you trust them to represent your interests? Do you trust them to run the country? Do you trust them enough to listen to their misleading advertisements and vote for them in the next election?
If you do, can I give you an address to send your $100 to?
September 3rd, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Political advertising, Misconduct in politics |
3 comments
If coming up with ludicrous accusations was an Olympic sport, Kevin Andrews would be a gold medal winner. His statement that the the speed of Dr Haneef's departure from Australia only made him more suspicious would have been funny if it didn't suggest that something is truly rotten in our government.
Haneef's speedy departure is suspicious? Well lets see:
- When Haneef was arrested almost a month ago, he was in the process of leaving Australia, apparently to get to his wife who just had a baby. It is ever so suspicious that once released he would be keen to do what he was trying to do a month ago and get home to his wife and daughter!
- He spent four weeks in custody - two being questioned by AFP and two locked up, courtesy of Mr Andrews who branded him a person of bad character. Yeah, it is really suspicious that someone put through that sort of ordeal would want to leave Australia in a hurry!
- Andrews seems to have forgotten that he cancelled Haneef's visa. Without a visa Haneef had no right to be in Australia and in fact, after his release from custody he was placed in "residential detention". Naturally, it is very suspicious that someone who has no visa and is being detained for that reason may want to leave the country as soon as possible!
And here is the best basis for suspicion:
Shortly after Haneef's release Kevin Andrews stated "After taking advice, including from the Australian Federal Police, I have indicated that the commonwealth has no objection to Dr Haneef leaving Australia. Indeed the effect of the visa cancellation is that he should remove himself, he should depart Australia in any event"
It is most suspicious that Haneef would take the Minister's advice and depart Australia with all due haste, isn't it? But not quite as suspicious as Andrews apparently forgetting having made the statement and using Haneef's prompt departure to stir up unfounded suspicions. Is he really that stupid or does he think we are?
July 30th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Terrorism and war on terror, Misconduct in politics |
no comments
I am in the process of writing a post about what the dangers of overzealous anti-terrorism measures as illustrated by the Haneef case. But before that post is complete, it is worth commenting on responsibility of the various actors in the Haneef fiasco and the hypocrisy of denial of that responsibility by the government.
A government that is responsible for a mistake or a bad situation is not necessarily unfit to govern. Of course it depends on the nature of the mistake and the government's role in it, but we have to face the reality that mistakes, and sometimes serious mistakes, can and do happen. A government which makes a mistake, admits it, learns from it and does what needs to be done to correct the situation is not a bad government by reason of the error alone.
On the other hand, a government which is responsible (wholly or in part) for a mistake or a bad situation and does not admit its responsibility, instead blaming anyone or anything it can, is not fit to govern. Not because it is responsible for a situation, but because it is unwilling to be what a government in a democracy must be - responsible.
In the wake of the collapse of case against Dr. Haneef, the Howard government sought to distance itself from the fiasco, blaming anyone and anything it could point a finger at.
Let's take a look at some of the government's outrageous attempts to duck responsibility:
1. "We didn't detain him"
Perhaps the best example is the statement by Howard "The detention of the man was undertaken by the police and not at the request or direction or encouragement of the Government".
How stupid does Howard think we are? Haneef was granted bail and was to be released, until the government (via one of its ministers - Kevin Andrews) intervened and used its immigration powers to detain Haneef. I do not propose to repeat my previously expressed views about Andrews' action, but given that this action was taken, and apparently taken after discussions between Andrews and other members of the government, it is extraordinary that Howard would say that the government was not responsible for Haneef's detention! In fact, Haneef is still being detained (in residential detention), solely because of the government's action to revoke his visa.
2. We weren't involved at all - blame the AFP and the DPP
In a variation on the above theme, Howard and Downer joined forces to claim that the AFP and the DPP operated entirely independently and the government was not in any way involved in the prosecution of Haneef.
Immediately after making the "we didn't detain him" statement, Howard went on to say that "the case was prepared and presented by the Director of [Public] Prosecutions, I think that the right thing now is for those two men to explain the process and explain the reasons" and Downer added "These institutions operate at arm's length from the Government and they always should and they always have."
Yes, the AFP stuffed up (do I dare mention the additions to the diary?). The DPP stuffed up as one of their prosecutors incorrectly told the court that Haneef's SIM card was found in the burning vehicle at Glasgow Airport and that he resided with the London terror suspects. Yes, those two institutions should operate at arm's length from the government, but that's not what happened here - the government may not have conducted the investigation itself, but it was certainly involved. It became involved when it decided to make political mileage out of the whole affair.
Here are just a few examples of the government's involvement: publicly supporting extended detention of Haneef and the AFP handling of the matter, declaring Haneef to be of "bad character" and stating that he will be deported even if found not guilty, locking him up after he was granted bail, publicly attacking and threatening Haneef's lawyers for releasing a transcript of the interview (which they were entitled to release), putting pressure on the AFP and the DPP, implying that anti-terrorism laws may need to be strengthened (presumably to better deal with vicious SIM-card sharing doctors), etc.
Had the case succeeded, the government would not doubt be quick to claim responsibility and boast about the success of its anti-terrorism measures. But while it it happy to take credit for success, it won't take any responsibility for its part in the prosecution which has now been revealed as a sham.
3. The Opposition are to blame because they supported us
This has got to be the most amusing attempt to duck responsibility - Andrews blamed the Opposition for supporting the government on Haneef. That's right - Labor rather than the government are to blame because they didn't oppose the government's actions!
There can be little doubt that the Opposition deserves criticism (and a lot of it) for its supine, unprincipled and cowardly position during the entire affair. It's "me to" attitude on everything from extended detention to supporting Andrews' outrageous use of migration detention powers means that it deserves almost as much blame as the government.
Nonetheless, Andrews' suggestion is quite extraordinary, not least because it is not too hard to predict what the government would have done if Labor had some guts and stood up to it. Without a doubt Howard would have painted Labor as soft on terrorism, putting Australian lives at risk and trying to bring about the complete destruction of Australia. Consider the government's response to Peter Beattie's criticism of the AFP investigation (incidentally, Beattie deserves praised for doing what the federal Labor did not dare to do). Howard's response to Rudd would no doubt have been even more extreme and would have allowed Howard to score some much needed political points.
Let's contrast the government's failure to accept responsibility with other actors in this drama:
The government's lack of integrity, as evidenced by it playing the blame game, may be contrasted with the actions of others in the Haneef fiasco. Let's start with Damien Bugg, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who reviewed the case, admitted that a mistake has been made and took appropriate steps to remedy the mistake. That was his job, but it must have taken a lot of guts given how political the case is.
The government's actions may also be contrasted with that of Stephen Keim SC, whose decision to release a transcript of Haneef's interview probably significantly contributed to the speed with which the case unravelled. Keim immediately took responsibility for releasing the transcript to the media and stood his ground despite vicious criticism and threat of criminal sanctions by the government. Keim (and Haneef's solicitor, Russo) should be commended for having the integrity and courage that our government obviously lacks.
Without a doubt, the blame game will continue for some time. Perhaps we should take the opportunity to consider whether a government which cannot act with integrity and which cannot take responsibility for its failures is a government that we should return in the next election.
July 28th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Law, Howard government, Rudd and Labor, Terrorism and war on terror, Misconduct in politics |
one comment
Once upon a time the Howard government was dangerously close to losing an election. But its fairy godmother delivered it a special election time gift - a ship called Tampa, with its cargo of a couple of hundred desperate bedraggled refugees rescued from their sinking boat. It's arrival saved the government. The carefully stirred fear of inundation by the threatening "otherness" of the asylum-seekers, the not-so suppressed echoes of the White Australia mentality, "border protection" and border excision, military deployment to export the unwanted human cargo to vulnerable and easily bribeable neighbouring islands, all incited voters to turn to the government as the only thing that could "protect" them. Fear is a powerful emotion, so powerful that we don't stop to examine just how irrational our fear may be, so powerful that we forget to be outraged about lies, deception and truth being thrown overboard. When it comes to election strategy - fear is king!
Now, with election swiftly approaching, the government popularity at all time low and no ship full of convenient scapegoats visible on the horizon, the government had to re-create Tampa by another way.
Haneef is a rather poor substitution for a boat-full of refugees, but desperate times obviously called for desperate measures. I have previously criticised the actions of the government in relation to Haneef, but I'd like to draw some parallels between the government's previous strategy to capitalise on the fear of asylum seekers and its present strategy to capitalise on the fear of terrorism.
1. Abuses of power
Treatment of asylum seekers was characterised by abuses of power, non-compliance with our international treaty obligations (eg. under the Refugee convention), violations of human rights (eg. by lengthy detention at the pleasure of the executive) and avoidance of legal remedies (eg, by ousting jurisdictions of courts or giving wide discretionary powers to decision makes to make decisions almost impossible to review).
The same abuses are evident in the case of Dr Haneef - lengthy detention prior to laying of charges, lack of clarity in the charges, denial of natural justice by withholding of information from Haneef's lawyers and subverting the legal process by utilising Migration Act powers are a few examples.
2. Lies, damn lies and the government
Anyone remember the children overboard affair? The government lied and it got away with it. A neat trick if you can pull it off.
Haneef's case, we now discover is also plagued by what appear to be deliberate lies or untruths. The AFP told the court (and the public) that Haneef admitted to living with the two UK terror suspects when he was in UK himself. In fact, Commonwealth Prosecutor Clive Porritt told the court that Haneef must have had some knowledge his cousins' links to terrorism because "These are people who he lived with, may have worked with and certainly associated with."
Now we find out that Haneef did not in fact live with the UK terror suspects. That's one hell of a mistake to make.
The AFP also told the court that Haneef had no explanation for not having a return ticket from India to Australia, when the transcript of Haneef's interview, bravely released by his legal team, shows that he did in fact give a detailed and reasonable explanation.
And perhaps the biggest "untruth" of all - the entire case hangs on the SIM card that Haneef is alleged to have given to his cousin and that was supposedly found in the burnt out Jeep that crashed into Glasgow airport. Well, new revelations indicate that the SIM card was not found in the Jeep at all, but was seized some eight hours later and was in possession of Sabeel Ahmed, who is accused of concealing information about the terrorist act, but not of actually committing it.
It's the truth overboard affair all over again and the government is up to its eyebrows in it.
3. Fear of exposure
In its (mis)treatment of asylum seekers the government went to great lengths to avoid exposure and conceal information. From gagging parliamentary debate to establishing off-shore detention centres, from whence troublesome journalists or lawyers could be excluded by visa requirements as well as barbed wire, the government ensured that secrecy ruled. One suspects there were at least two reasons for it. The first is that it is easier to dehumanise a group of people when they are physically separated from us. The other is to control public discourse on the issue in a way that suited the government.
The same is true in the Haneef situation. There are the claims about "secret" evidence that no one is allowed to see and which is therefore immediately presumed to be damning. The crackdown on release of information, including unjustified and hypocritical attacks on Haneef's legal team who dared to release the transcript of his interview (which is how we found out about the lies set out above), combined with carefully planned leaks and public statements by the government create the conditions for control of public discourse about the issue.
Just how important this control is was evidenced by the extraordinary reaction to the release of Haneef's interview transcript, a reaction which included vilification and, arguably, threatening statements by very senior government ministers (including the PM) and pressuring the editor of the Australian to withdraw the online copy of the transcript (the pressure must have been great because the Australian complied). The message is clear - the government wants to be in control of the discussion, it wants darkness where fear can grow and fester, undisturbed by the cleansing rays of light.
4. Labor party response - the shadow
Just like with the asylum seeker situation, Labor has been forced to become a yes-man to the government. Whatever its own ideological standing is on the issue (and unfortunately it is probably not too far from that of the Howard government), if it does anything other than support the government's position it will be swept away by the tidal wave of fear.
It allows the government to lead, with Labor reduced to making weak statements of support. For a government that has been on the back foot, it is a good election strategy.
Haneef case has become the government's chance to re-create Tampa and to bring fear to its aid at a time when rational approach to electoral choices is not in its favour. In doing so, it is again victimising someone who is vulnerable to abuse of power and undermining long established principles that are designed to protect us all. It is once again morally impoverishing Australia.
July 20th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Human rights, Howard government, Terrorism and war on terror, Misconduct in politics |
no comments
No, I'm not referring to the expensive refit of Howard's plane or the posh cabinet chairs - travelling in luxury is not the most objectionable example of Howard government's misuse of public funds. Misusing taxpayer money to keep himself in power is much worse - especially when the money is directed to misinformation of the public.
I have previously written about some $2 billion Howard spent on advertising himself. His excuse was that he was "informing" the people - although it is not clear what accurate information can be gained from advertisements such as for the WorkChoices. Apparently the PM decided that a multi-billion dollar promotion budget was not enough to continue his desperate cling to power and so now the taxpayers are funding specialist propaganda units, secretly set up by the government.
One unit, reportedly set up under the auspices of Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (although not surprisingly none of its staff is listed in official staff handbooks) at the cost of more than $1 million is said by an insider to have only "one brief — shoot down Labor's plan and promote the Government's plan." It is producing "information kits" for Liberal candidates in marginal seats and will design a multi-million dollar advertising campaign to be run by the government (again at taxpayer expense).
Another propaganda unit called the "Government Members' Secretariat" employs 14 staff at a $1.5 million cost to the taxpayer. It's brief is solely to exclusively to help Coalition MPs with their election campaigning. It was reported that Philip Ruddock runs yet another "dirt unit" (funded by the taxpayer), although Ruddock, not surprisingly, denied the allegation. The Age reports that Howard government ministers employ up to 20 staff "whose sole task is to help the Government get re-elected and whose work has nothing to do with their ministers' portfolios."
The PM also employs some 73 media advisors and spin doctors at a cost of $8.4 million per year (up from $5.9 million three years ago), again all at public expense. To be fair, Kevin Rudd also has taxpayer-funded advisors, but only 16 of them, at a cost of $1.2 million, ie 14% of what Howard spends.
It is true that all governments use public money and they can do so legitimately. However, the Howard government is using our money to feed us spin and to promote itself, it is using public funds in its own interest, not in the interest of the nation. Be it secret propaganda units or idiotic billboards about the link between unions and Labor (I saw one today - talk about a waste of space!) such activities are not legitimate, they reek of corruption. We pay taxes so the government can use the money for the benefit of the country - not to keep itself in power.
July 15th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Political advertising, Misconduct in politics |
2 comments
I just saw a 7.30 report regarding an inquiry into health department conduct in relation to a report recommending PET technology for cancer patients. PET stands for Positron Emission Topography. The technology is widely acknowledged as the best way of ascertaining the status of and diagnosing some cancers, including breast cancer and prostate cancer, the most common cancers in women and men respectively.
The transcript of the broadcast is not yet on the ABC site, but it reports on a paper prepared by cancer experts in 2000, which stated that PET was "safe, clinically effective and possibly cost-effective". The health department apparently edited the report adding the word "possibly" before "clinically effective" and adding an introductory paragraph stating that the effectiveness of the technology has not been proven. As a result, the Medicare committee did not approve Medicare funding for the use of technology for breast and prostate cancers (one scan costs over $800, so it would be cost-prohibitive to most) and instead requested a 7 year study into the technology. The seven years are now over, the experts know that the technology works as well as they knew it back in 2000. In the meantime, one has to wonder how many cancer patients received inappropriate or ineffective treatments, experienced more difficult or longer recovery or even lost their lives because of the actions of the health department (and, in accordance with the principles of responsible government, the Minister for Health).
Interestingly, tampering with the experts' report only came to light because of persistence of one scientist who fought to obtain information from the Department, including going to court when his FOI applications were rejected and "accosting" Howard in the street. His actions brought the matter to the attention of the Senate and there is presently a Senate Inquiry into the health department conduct. The results of the inquiry are expected next month.
I'll update this post once the transcript of the 7.30 report is published, but it is frightening that a government department would act in a manner that would delay by 7 years access to potentially life-saving technology.
July 9th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Health and Welfare, Misconduct in politics |
no comments
The Howard government has been very vocal about so called union "thugs" - using incidences of inappropriate behaviour on part of a couple of union officials to attack Labor's affiliation with the union movement and to run a scare campaign about union "thugs" taking over Australia should Labor win the election. Those suggestions are of course arrant nonsense, but truth and rationality are not pre-requisites in scare campaigns.
But perhaps Mr Howard would have done better looking a bit closer to home - because if (as it may very well be) a bit of abusive language is unacceptable behaviour for union officials, the conduct of Howard's liberal party mates if not any better.
Jim Aitken
Let's start with the Liberal party member Jim Aitken who was just convicted of assaulting a union media officer. The incident history is quite interesting. Apparently Mr Aitken, as a principal of a real estate agency, put one of his workers on an AWA, which reduced her take-home pay by as much as $30,000 a year. In response, the local Your Rights at Work Committee staged a peaceful protest outside the real estate agency. The protesters were greeted with a multitude of photographers, video surveillance and police. Mr Aitken declined to explain his actions, preferring to threaten legal action and sneer "this is much bigger than you people" when asked for a response by Workers Online.
The matter did not end there, however. One of the protesters was a National Union of Workers union officer Mark Ptolemy. About a month later, as Mr Ptolemy was working at a community fair stall, he was approached by Mr Aitken who reportedly verbally abused him for about an hour, calling him "a paedophile, homosexual and a union thug." (this is also a good example of Liberals' views on homosexuality), physically pushed him around and threatened to send thugs to his house to break his legs. Ptolemy, who feared the incident may escalate contacted the police and charges were laid. That Aitken acted like a thug has now been proven in a court of law.
It is as yet unclear whether Howard will take action and move to expel Aitken from the Liberal party as Kevin Rudd, rightly or wrongly, forced the expulsion of misbehaving union members.
Bill Heffernan
When it comes to consistently inappropriate behaviour, Howard's close friend, Bill Heffernan surely takes the cake. Few can forget his outrageous abuse of parliamentary privilege when he used forged documents to make very serious and completely false allegations against Justice Michael Kirby. He got away with having to resign as Parliamentary secretary and an apology. Close personal friendship with the Prime Minister is obviously useful in avoiding more serious sanctions (notably, Coalition sentaors all voted against a censure motion).
Not so long ago he alleged that Julia Gillard is unfit for leadership because she is socially "barren". Again, he got away with making an apology, which he undoubtedly did not mean.
Lets not forget a host of other incidents, such as gatecrashing a Labor party press conference given by Senator Conroy, interjecting repeatedly and standing behind Conroy and pulling faces, having an altercation with a Nationals Senator Fiona Nash, during which he told her to "blow it out her backside" and stealing how to vote cards from Greens volunteers at this year's NSW election and standing for four hours outside the polling booth stirring up trouble, including shouting "If you want to decriminalise drugs for your children, vote Green.'' Heffernan would not return the how to vote cards until police were called. His excuse? He wanted to have a bit of fun because "Sydney is as boring as bat shit".
A week ago Heffernan admitted to impersonating an ASIO officer and Senator Barnaby Joyce in a number of telephone calls concerning Cubbie Station. Under the Criminal Code Act (Cth), impersonating a public official is a criminal offence (see Divisions 142 and 148). So what is Heffernan's defence to breaking the law - he was just having some fun! "Can't a bloke have any fun any more?" he said. Needless to say, "having fun" is not a defence to any offences he may have committed.
So will Howard move to expel Heffernan from the Liberal party for his behaviour? I wouldn't count on it.
And the others…
Former Howard government minister, Gary Hardgrave and another Liberal party MP Andrew Laming are under investigation and are facing possible charges for rorting taxpayer funds to pay for campaign material. The alleged rort of some $67,000 pales into insignificance when compared with about $2 billion of taxpayer money used by Howard to advertise himself.
The Libs have had other more mundane incidents, such as the resignation of Aged Service Minister Senator Santoro earlier this year after "forgetting to disclose 70 parcels of shares and Human Services Minister Ian Campbell being forced to resign after admitting to a meeting with Brian Burke.
The Liberals are not short of "thugs" themselves, and some of these remain very close to the party power base. Despite this the Howard government is hypocritical (and desperate) enough to impute to the Labor party the misbehaviour of a couple of union members and to continue running its "union thugs" scare campaigns, but it would be foolish to forget the maxim that those living in glass houses should be careful with casting stones left right and centre.
July 1st, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Unions, Misconduct in politics |
4 comments
RSS
